In the not so near future, I will be looking for my social security to pay for myself and my husband's retirement years. However, according to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Americans in my age bracket believe more in U.F.O. existence than the idea that money will be there when it's their time.

This is a mistrust that needs to be taken care of immediately even though a light at the end of the tunnel is beginning to exist. Republicans lead by President George W. Bush are introducing changes for the system including making it voluntary and allowing the money to go into personal accounts instead of in the hill's budget.

Looking beyond the other side of the aisle, I watch the news channels covering the subject these days and instead of seeing balance being fed, negativity is born. Recently, our esteemed President visited my home of New Jersey attempting to persuade the public of the proposal he has for this issue. My personal perspective of the idea will be discussed later but I do have to say that the local news organization showed their blue monster that is liberal bias as they did more stories on the protesters against the policy than the ones there for it; although I am sure they were numerous supporters. Afterward, they had open discussions yet their titles showed a viewable hint of leaning before the speakers for it could take a breath.

Now for my personal perspective: I like all the ideas not because I am a Republican (and proud of it), but because I have aging parents and friends and family who will need the money just as much as me and many deserve it more than me. My father, for instance, works over 10 hrs of the day for his electrical contracting business with such little help that my grandfather is his best assistant. If he ever retires, I want him to have all the money he has a right to have.
Technically, the idea of privatization believe it or not is not as new as the bastard child Democrats are treating it as. In fact President Franklin Roosevelt (ahem...Democrat) was quoted talking of Social Security carrying privatization and voluntary abilities.

Democrats from the word reform have fought against the President on these perspectives. Called "The party of no" by Frist, there was hints of battle for the party than for the people. Especially so many threats of filibusters or other holds before the ink on the paper was even dry.

Knowing the possibility of an immature reaction from the Democrats, Republicans respond they have no problem getting to the compromise table and really discussing what's best for the nation and for ailing factor. But so far, Democrats still give the threats.

Despite all this, the right still fight to have the left at the table, and the reactions still keep coming. The end of social security is near, but the end to the anger doesn't.

I say to the Democrats look at yourselves; Remember who placed you on the hill and who your real bosses are. If you want us to go down to your level then remember that members who do not bring credit to the constituents don't have a great chance of re-election. Rising up, go to the table with us and not the letter next to your name. A D or R doesn't mean anything when America is at risk. As Ronald Regan said: We are all Americans.

End social security by Alex Epstein (January 24, 2005)
In the latest of our series of articles on America's Social Security system, Alex Epstein argues that the program doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be demolished

Reassuring the right: Social Security questions ahead for Bush by W. James Antle III (January 17, 2005)
George W. Bush may be eager to reform Social Security but the rest of the party is worried about the fallout. W. James Antle III says the administration needs to produce a comprehensive proposal to explain why reform is necessary and how it's to be undertaken

A sound retirement system by Bob Costello (January 3, 2005)
If Social Security is to survive, says Bob Costello, then Americans will have to move to a personal retirement account system. The problem? There isn't a lot of time left

says there is one thing that no one ever discusses when the future of Social Security is debated: age

The disastrous deal of 1972 by Gregory Bresiger (December 13, 1999)Gregory Bresiger traces the problems of Social Security back to a 1972 deal that few opposed. Problems that will continue as long as Social Security is around